Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

General board for article creation

Answered

– Tiggerjay (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if there was any generalized area to talk about creating an article. Maybe a "notability noticeboard" or something. It's regarding an arson attack in the West Bank on 31 July. It's in the news again because the mother just died. It's already listed in a few areas, including List of Israeli price tag attacks, but I was wondering if it was appropriate by this point to break it off into a new article. I'm not usually one to create articles, with the Israeli-Palestine conflict especially is a powder keg around here. Checked out WP:RA and both the WikiProjects for Israel and Palestine, but none seem like an appropriate central place for discussion. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk; there used to be a Notability Noticeboard, but it was closed do to lack of interest from experienced editors (information on said closure can be found on the bottom of the noticeboard talkpage). ʍ w 23:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request on wikipedia page

Answered

– Tiggerjay (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

We have had three requests now to take down/edit our wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_and_Trailer_South_Africa

We realise that the content isnt sourced very well but there just isnt much info online for our brand. Is there anything we can do to make it better? We have mentions and not "full" coverage online... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Ungersbock (talk • contribs) 06:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is no, there is nothing you can do, if reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia are not out there already. Articles can be on Wikipedia only if the subject of the article is notable, which is the standard we use to determine whether or not an article can exist. See the general notability guideline for the basic standard and then see Notability (organizations and companies) for a broader discussion of how notability applies to companies. Moreover, even if adequate reliable sources do exist, you should not be editing your own article under our conflict of interest standards (though you should feel free to give them on the article talk page for some other editor to include, you can use the {{edit request}} template on the talk page for that purpose): if your company is important enough some independent editor will take the time to create or improve the article. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mww merge into founder page

Answered

– Tiggerjay (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This pr firm non notable can it merge to ceo page MWW (company) Tonyhhhhhhh (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User indefinitely blocked, no response needed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add Lesley Gore

Honorific_nicknames_in_popular_music: Lesley Gore should be added to the article "Honorific Nicknames in Popular Culture". She has often been referred to as the 'Queen of Teen Angst'. Helenjeanmarie (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Helen Jean Marie[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that we can use to verify that statement? Tiggerjay (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzly bear

I am not posting to TALK because my question relates to the many articles about the brown bear. All of the articles above are about the same species. I am a biologist who works in the area I am discussing. I try to help edit but I probably can only find about half of the brown bear articles.

There should only be one central page for every species. If a student searches for brown bear, Mexican grizzly, or black grizzly all searches should direct to this one page. I propose that WP should have a rule that for every species that there be a main page where the science for the species is described. Another page that disputes the science must debate science on the main page.

There is only one species of brown bear and the Kodiak subspecies (debate exists within Russia where modern genetics has less weight) but there are thousands of old Latin and common names for them. "The specific status of North American grizzly bears is one of the most complex problems of mammalian taxonomy. The difficulty stems directly from the work of Merriam (1918), who concluded that there are 86 forms of grizzlies (and brown bears) in North America." (Rausch 1953) Merriam's Lamarckian version of genetics permitted litter-mates to be assigned to different species. WP now permits articles on all 86 brown bear species in North America. WP now permits editors to say that the grizzly bear and brown bear are different species because the old scientific literature supports this. Is this acceptable?

Should there be a way for people to find all of the articles on this species? Every old name should have an article when someone wants this, "but these should all advise the reader of (1) the accepted scientific status, (2) the current accepted name, (3) and if there is an ongoing debate - a reference to both sides.

Example: "The Eurasian brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos) is one of the most common subspecies of the brown bear, found across Eurasia." Eurasian brown bear This is not true. Fifty years ago it was true but it has not been for 25 years. There are many seemingly reliable sources that were once correct to support this claim.

I like the idea that there is an article about the grizzly bear as long as someone writing a report on the brown bear knows that scientifically there is no such bear as a "grizzly bear". Grizzly bears still exist in our culture and language and there should be a page to discuss them with their old name (only used in North America). There is a huge trove of folklore for example. The lead for the Himalayan brown bear would be enough if used consistently in every article.

These articles are very misleading scientifically. I cannot find all of them to fix them and I cannot engage in TALK for 28 different articles over the same issues. Grizzly bear for example has many scientifically invalid claims about science that are supported by long outdated citations that 50 years ago were reliable sources. Rausch is one example, his work is still respected for some topics but modern work has left other topics outdated. The Daily Republic newspaper is cited by an earnest editor on a technical topic for a claim that was once accurate.

I recognize that even though I have technical expertise that we are all equals in the collegial process. I know how to do this. What I cannot do is do this on 28 or 56 different articles for the same species and the same issue.

Thank you your advice Raggz (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raggz. I'm not an expert on bears - or any other kind of animals, genera, species, or whatever - but It does sound as if you may be right and that it would be probably most logical to merge the contents of all these articles in to one article. There are two ways of doing this: Post an exact copy of yyourur message above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals and hope that someone will do it, or choose the best of all those articles and propose merging all the others to it; then if nothing gets done after a while, you're in for a few long evenings in front of your computer and you'll end up with something that you can get reviewed and promoted to WP:GA. To see how to propose a merge, go to WP:MERGE and if you get stuck o the technicality of it, leave a note on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of "one of the largest coal reserves in Asia and the world".

I came across this repeated phrase in a number of articles about coal mines in Queensland, Australia. It can't be right since it appears in 78 coal mine articles (not just Au.) with (reported) reserves ranging from 163 million tonnes to 3.57 billion tonnes.

The phrase appears to originate in the editing of User:Bine_Mai. This user has created 3,554 articles, the vast majority being about oil fields, gas fields and mines; with some about football players, oil and gas terminals, and solar parks and a few other subjects. X!'s Tools reports them to be in the "일반 문서" namespace? which Google translates as Korean for "general documents", I don't understand this as the user is listed as Romanian & the articles appear to be on the English Wikipedia.

I'm not inclined to approach this user on their talk page, since there seem to be certain consistencies there which may not have been addressed by the user. This user's autopatrolled user right was removed in March 2015.

I could go and add cite templates to the 78 articles or just remove the phrase from most of the articles, but I don't have the stamina to go through 3,500 odd articles fact checking. Many of these articles have been edited by other users and no doubt good information added. WikiProject Mining is listed as semi-active.

So... I'm out of my depth here. I don't know what to do, but I am concerned about this particular repeated phrase, since it is not a casual assertion. Of course people visiting Wikipedia should do their own research, but there is the real potential for people to make substantial decisions based on this repeated statement, e.g. somebody researching mineral resources owned by one particular company and thinking they have struck a proverbial gold mine—assuming that that particular company owns all the best resources. I haven't gone through the gas, oil and other mine articles; but I am concerned about their accuracy as well. I concur with User:Bearian 's comments in User_talk:Bine_Mai#Concern. If these 3,500 articles have resource information sourced mostly from the companies owning the resources, then there may be serious NPOV problems. As of September 2015^[update] there is a lot of market volatility around mineral resources, especially fossil fuels; I would hate to think that Wikipedia has a disruptive influence out in the world namespace, and I fear for the possible consequences to Wikipedia & Wikimedia reputation. David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 13:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

My Wikipedia entry

Someone created a Wikipedia page for me, and I was not happy with the content. I tried many times to correct the content but the editors kept reverting to the original page. Is it possible to remove the current page, so that I can write my own page myself? I thank you for your help on this.212.185.96.28 (talk)